Problems with believability in audio

[Lagonda]

Scientists build 3D 'audio dome' with such high-fidelity speakers it tricks your ears that you're at the source

New research has revealed that a domed array of loudspeakers can create virtual soundscapes capable of blurring human perception.

www.livescience.com

91 speakers and probably still not good enough to pass Ron's "girl with a guitar" test on voices !

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, black box - I'll simplify it even more - if Speaker X and speaker Y are designed very well (say within min acceptable "distortions" tolerances), then why would a speaker design favor a music genre?

1) Distortion merely is one technical objective measurement. (I suspect that distortion -- unless gross -- is not very predictive of the sound quality coming out of the speakers.)

2) Not everything about resulting sound quality that matters can be measured.

3) One technical measurement has little to do with the propagation of sound in air by loudspeakers.

 

[sbo6]

1) Distortion merely is one technical objective measurement. (I suspect that distortion -- unless gross -- is not very predictive of the sound quality coming out of the speakers.)

2) Not everything about resulting sound quality that matters can be measured.

3) One technical measurement has little to do with the propagation of sound in air by loudspeakers.

1) There are many forms of distortion and it's certainly predictive of sound emanating from loudspeakers
2) Possibly
3) See #1

 

[Mgrif104]

This is a fascinating thread. At times amusing (mine’s bigger than yours), or confusing, but fairly thought provoking. I’ll add my $.02.
I spent some time in the mid 80s as an apprentice audio engineer in a performing arts center, recording ensembles large and small and providing amplification for a wide variety of groups. I also go to the symphony regularly so I have a reasonable idea of what that sounds like. I have spent enough on my systems to get to the results I want. Neither of those systems remotely reproduces what I hear at a concert unless we’re talking about a home concert (which we have also hosted).
The audio engineer for a recording is choosing mics based on their voicing characteristics (i.e.Neumann U87 v M50) and purpose (vocal, instrument, venue space,, etc.) location of those mics (piano is excruciatingly difficult to record with authenticity to how it actually sounds).
The audio engineer for amplification is trying to make sure you can actually hear everything while doing their best to not blow out the ears of the performers through monitors, while capturing their instrument authentically (nearly impossible because stage mics are very, very different and narrower in frequency response and sound field from recording mics) so that you get a reasonable sound field.
The speakers for virtually all venues are in mono (not stereo) so all participants hear the mix. Walk around the venue while doing a sound check and you can easily hear the phase cancellations and comb effects in real time.
When i listen to a recording - I do not want to hear it at lifelike volume as that is too loud to actually hear everything the recording engineer was hoping you’d hear. At reasonable volumes, I can hear more subtleties and color. Yes, I certainly don’t enjoy the dynamic contrasts of a life performance - but that makes going to the concert more of a special event.
There are so many variables. The vintage of a recording matters greatly. I find many of the early digital DG recordings particularly bad. They had a mic on every stand so the recordings were flat front to back, and they were often mixed poorly and too bright. Some of the old RCA living color recordings from the late 50s and 60s are marvelous - particularly given the limitations of the technology at the time. Still a bit bright, but closer to what you might hear in a hall but still an interpretation with a dizzying amount of variables.
My point in this is that I’m not really looking to recreate the concert in my room - because I don’t really think you can. You can get closer than I do, but personally, I am looking to take a deeper dive into the music and performance than I can get from a concert. Yes - I hear more detail, more nuance, more of the performance than I can hear in the concert hall. That’s what I want. I go to the concert to hear the mighty dynamics and spontaneity. At home I want to lean in - maybe even dissect the music if I’m unfamiliar with it.
So my goal is not recreating the concert. I want my system to disappear so I’m not listening to my gear, but to the music. Recreating the performance in my listening room to the point of suspending belief? Not close. Pleasing and how I want to hear it? Very close.

 

[bonzo75]

This is a fascinating thread. At times amusing (mine’s bigger than yours)

Whose did you find biggest? Feedback will help people take stretching more seriously

 

[Holmz]

1) Distortion merely is one technical objective measurement. (I suspect that distortion -- unless gross -- is not very predictive of the sound quality coming out of the speakers.)

^True^
And many people like some types of distortion.

2) Not everything about resulting sound quality that matters can be measured.

Well that is sort off an all-or-nothing, or black-n-while, good-n-evil polarisation.
People do not come up with new ideas other than by having some hypothesis and then doing som engineering to make test it out.
They are not haunched over a cauldron using magic.

3) One technical measurement has little to do with the propagation of sound in air by loudspeakers.

Other than their radiation pattern, which is also a measurable thing these days.
But yeah the speed of sound is relatively “fixed”.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Well that is sort off an all-or-nothing, or black-n-while, good-n-evil polarisation.
People do not come up with new ideas other than by having some hypothesis and then doing som engineering to make test it out.
They are not haunched over a cauldron using magic.

I don't understand your comment. Good-n-evil?

"Not everything about resulting sound quality that matters can be measured" is, to me, an obvious fact. I don't see anything polarizing about it unless somebody is an objectivist who believes that everything can be measured. Yes, such a person might find this true statement disagreeable.

"Not everything about resulting sound quality that matters can be measured" is a complete and successful refutation of the claim that if two speakers have the same measured distortion then they must sound the same.

 

[Holmz]

I don't understand your comment. Good-n-evil?

"Not everything about resulting sound quality that matters can be measured" is, to me, an obvious fact. I don't see anything polarizing about it unless somebody is an objectivist who believes that everything can be measured. Yes, such a person might find this true statement disagreeable.

Sure.
The hard core objectivist may.
And the hard core subjectivist could find the idea of measurement objectionable.

But it is pretty factual that engineering is rooted in understanding how things work.

"Not everything about resulting sound quality that matters can be measured" is a complete and successful refutation of the claim that if two speakers have the same measured distortion then they must sound the same.

Sure the radiation pattern, the transient response, etc are all contributors.

I think that @sbo6 claim was that if it’s distorted to sound nice for a particular genre of music, then it may not be good for all music in general.

 

[ssfas]

This is a fascinating thread. At times amusing (mine’s bigger than yours), or confusing, but fairly thought provoking. I’ll add my $.02.
I spent some time in the mid 80s as an apprentice audio engineer in a performing arts center, recording ensembles large and small and providing amplification for a wide variety of groups. I also go to the symphony regularly so I have a reasonable idea of what that sounds like. I have spent enough on my systems to get to the results I want. Neither of those systems remotely reproduces what I hear at a concert unless we’re talking about a home concert (which we have also hosted).
The audio engineer for a recording is choosing mics based on their voicing characteristics (i.e.Neumann U87 v M50) and purpose (vocal, instrument, venue space,, etc.) location of those mics (piano is excruciatingly difficult to record with authenticity to how it actually sounds).
The audio engineer for amplification is trying to make sure you can actually hear everything while doing their best to not blow out the ears of the performers through monitors, while capturing their instrument authentically (nearly impossible because stage mics are very, very different and narrower in frequency response and sound field from recording mics) so that you get a reasonable sound field.
The speakers for virtually all venues are in mono (not stereo) so all participants hear the mix. Walk around the venue while doing a sound check and you can easily hear the phase cancellations and comb effects in real time.
When i listen to a recording - I do not want to hear it at lifelike volume as that is too loud to actually hear everything the recording engineer was hoping you’d hear. At reasonable volumes, I can hear more subtleties and color. Yes, I certainly don’t enjoy the dynamic contrasts of a life performance - but that makes going to the concert more of a special event.
There are so many variables. The vintage of a recording matters greatly. I find many of the early digital DG recordings particularly bad. They had a mic on every stand so the recordings were flat front to back, and they were often mixed poorly and too bright. Some of the old RCA living color recordings from the late 50s and 60s are marvelous - particularly given the limitations of the technology at the time. Still a bit bright, but closer to what you might hear in a hall but still an interpretation with a dizzying amount of variables.
My point in this is that I’m not really looking to recreate the concert in my room - because I don’t really think you can. You can get closer than I do, but personally, I am looking to take a deeper dive into the music and performance than I can get from a concert. Yes - I hear more detail, more nuance, more of the performance than I can hear in the concert hall. That’s what I want. I go to the concert to hear the mighty dynamics and spontaneity. At home I want to lean in - maybe even dissect the music if I’m unfamiliar with it.
So my goal is not recreating the concert. I want my system to disappear so I’m not listening to my gear, but to the music. Recreating the performance in my listening room to the point of suspending belief? Not close. Pleasing and how I want to hear it? Very close.

Frankly, whenever I hear a really good acoustic, which yesterday was in the Copenhagen Opera House, the thought eventually gets into my head that hifi is so lacking as a musical experience other than in very limited circumstances that it’s just chasing unicorns and beyond a fairly basic level mostly an exercise in pedantry. I can hardly ever correlate a recording with a live performance. As I get older hifi just increasingly seems an exercise in futility.

 

[microstrip]

(...) As I get older hifi just increasingly seems an exercise in futility.

The high end is an intrinsically individual hobby. Surely it can be considered futile in a biblical sense. As many other hobbies ...

 

[Kingrex]

Frankly, whenever I hear a really good acoustic, which yesterday was in the Copenhagen Opera House, the thought eventually gets into my head that hifi is so lacking as a musical experience other than in very limited circumstances that it’s just chasing unicorns and beyond a fairly basic level mostly an exercise in pedantry. I can hardly ever correlate a recording with a live performance. As I get older hifi just increasingly seems an exercise in futility.

My wife always say my stereo sounds better than what we hear at the Seattle Symphony. The stereo.is more immersive. It a much closer wall of music. Live is way off in the diatance. If your in row N, your how far back. Maybe even in row DD. How far are you from your speakers.

I like my stereo. Live is better as an event. Your there with people and maybe friends. Stereo is more intimate and controlled. If I could only take one, I would keep the stereo.

 

[bonzo75]

My wife always say my stereo sounds better than what we hear at the Seattle Symphony.

What does she say when she is angry at you

 

[Kingrex]

What does she say when she is angry at you

Nothing, she gets all quiet and I go sleep in the car with the doors locked.

 

[wil]

Frankly, whenever I hear a really good acoustic, which yesterday was in the Copenhagen Opera House, the thought eventually gets into my head that hifi is so lacking as a musical experience other than in very limited circumstances that it’s just chasing unicorns and beyond a fairly basic level mostly an exercise in pedantry. I can hardly ever correlate a recording with a live performance. As I get older hifi just increasingly seems an exercise in futility.

… not my experience. I’m after whatever gets me close to the music whether it be live or at home — and the home experience gets me there more often than not.

 

[AudioHR]

This is a fascinating thread. At times amusing (mine’s bigger than yours), or confusing, but fairly thought provoking. I’ll add my $.02.
I spent some time in the mid 80s as an apprentice audio engineer in a performing arts center, recording ensembles large and small and providing amplification for a wide variety of groups. I also go to the symphony regularly so I have a reasonable idea of what that sounds like. I have spent enough on my systems to get to the results I want. Neither of those systems remotely reproduces what I hear at a concert unless we’re talking about a home concert (which we have also hosted).
The audio engineer for a recording is choosing mics based on their voicing characteristics (i.e.Neumann U87 v M50) and purpose (vocal, instrument, venue space,, etc.) location of those mics (piano is excruciatingly difficult to record with authenticity to how it actually sounds).
The audio engineer for amplification is trying to make sure you can actually hear everything while doing their best to not blow out the ears of the performers through monitors, while capturing their instrument authentically (nearly impossible because stage mics are very, very different and narrower in frequency response and sound field from recording mics) so that you get a reasonable sound field.
The speakers for virtually all venues are in mono (not stereo) so all participants hear the mix. Walk around the venue while doing a sound check and you can easily hear the phase cancellations and comb effects in real time.
When i listen to a recording - I do not want to hear it at lifelike volume as that is too loud to actually hear everything the recording engineer was hoping you’d hear. At reasonable volumes, I can hear more subtleties and color. Yes, I certainly don’t enjoy the dynamic contrasts of a life performance - but that makes going to the concert more of a special event.
There are so many variables. The vintage of a recording matters greatly. I find many of the early digital DG recordings particularly bad. They had a mic on every stand so the recordings were flat front to back, and they were often mixed poorly and too bright. Some of the old RCA living color recordings from the late 50s and 60s are marvelous - particularly given the limitations of the technology at the time. Still a bit bright, but closer to what you might hear in a hall but still an interpretation with a dizzying amount of variables.
My point in this is that I’m not really looking to recreate the concert in my room - because I don’t really think you can. You can get closer than I do, but personally, I am looking to take a deeper dive into the music and performance than I can get from a concert. Yes - I hear more detail, more nuance, more of the performance than I can hear in the concert hall. That’s what I want. I go to the concert to hear the mighty dynamics and spontaneity. At home I want to lean in - maybe even dissect the music if I’m unfamiliar with it.
So my goal is not recreating the concert. I want my system to disappear so I’m not listening to my gear, but to the music. Recreating the performance in my listening room to the point of suspending belief? Not close. Pleasing and how I want to hear it? Very close.

This is just such an articulate and well written post I have to respond.

It is a fascinating thread for sure. I don't have the breadth of experience of you but I have to agree with your feeling that you can't really create recreate a classical concert in the typical listening room.

Like you I go to classical concerts and other musical events including hosting home concerts. While I love the live performance of the CPO in their concert hall I know that my system/room is not capable of producing that kind of sound. Listening in some clubs and small halls playing jazz or popular music I sometimes feel the sound of my system gets closer to what I am hearing at that live event.

Do I continue to hopefully improve my system to be more, what I think is, believable. I do, so I must have a sense of what believability is. While I can enjoy the classical records I have, I do so knowing they are not what I would hear in the concert hall but I do believe they are reasonable facsimiles. Like a really good photo or painting is not like being there but can be a believable representation.

The reality is as you and others state, it is OK to enjoy and believe in the beauty of a musical performance of any genre even it is not exactly like what you might hear at a live event. Viva la difference!

 

[JackD201]

My personal philosophy is that there is no escaping the human component.

We all agree that if we like the music we can enjoy it from a bluetooth speaker smaller than a can of soda. Son to me this breaks down sound reproduction into two major parts. The first is the recording of a performance or performances and the packaging of the same into a medium and the second is the the reproduction: how we choose to unpack the information back into acoustic energy.

There are human decisions made every step of the way from composition, improvisation, performance, the entire recording, processing and manufacturing process onto the reproduction side and the myriad decisions of design, execution, selection, set up in the home, acoustic environments in the home and finally listening.

I fancy myself a student of the recording arts and this is what my choices are made of. My most prized LP is a mono recording from my late mother, Rachmaninov plays rachmaninov. It is not a special pressing and the recording is as one might expect not one of what one would describe as having high fidelity being recorded before the 1930s. To me however, it is a piece of art. Every recording is to me a piece of art in and of itself.

We audiophiles seem to put great emphasis on the reproduction side on the equipment and set up thereof forgetting that we as the end users are the end human component with our own imprint on the reproduced sound by virtue of the purchasing and application decisions we make. We are a part of the reproduction chain.

My personal goal therefore is to handle the reproduction side starting with the medium in my possession or coded information to which I have access and make decisions that will allow me to enjoy that piece of art. In my case it is a balance that can be precarious because as the end user I need to juggle respecting the artistry of the recording by not putting too strong of a personal imprint that the nuggets are homogenized. Obviously these are purely personal metrics.

As such, I am not fully subscribed to RH's "Absolute Sound" or JV's so called "Trio". Those are their goal and each of us have our own which WILL vary under the context of each and every single piece of music we choose to cue up and play.

 

[tima]

My personal philosophy is that there is no escaping the human component.

Great post Jack, thanks for giving us that.

 

[tima]

I spent some time in the mid 80s as an apprentice audio engineer in a performing arts center, recording ensembles large and small and providing amplification for a wide variety of groups.

Nice write-up Mark, interesting information.

 

[Hydrology]

I will admit I haven't bothered to read the original story nor the 17 pages on here. Even the best hifi systems are still an average photocopy of the real thing - live music. I am OK with this and accept this, so it doesn't hold back my enjoyment of listening to hifi in its many, many incarnations and combinations, no matter what the level and cost.

 

[morricab]

You proved my point, all or none are best for any type of music. There is no one definitive loudspeaker design that's best for any genre of music.

I said nothing about their relationship to different types of music. Care to assign a speaker type to each genre of music??